I'm not quite sure of the distinction between improving cash flow and stopping the company going bust, the two are normally equivalent for a company in the state that NATS was at the time.
Nor I, yet management are quite categorical that it wasn't the pension holiday that stopped the company going bust.
I'm slightly puzzled that you think there is something wrong in that
I don't, I'm merely pointing out the company is now in a position to make even more profits. I have nothing against the company making profits but we shouldn't be misled over the financial state of the company.
Remember that the RPI-x formula for the bulk of its income means that NATS has to find savings year on year just to stay in the same place
Such as paying off loans early. Increasing their credit rating and therefore reducing interest rates on loans.